Assessment Plan of the Department of Physics and Astronomy – 2003/2004
I. Undergraduate Degrees in Physics and Astronomy
Physics and astronomy are natural sciences that seek to understand the physical world at the most fundamental level. These two fields are intimately connected to each other since all the laws of physics apply throughout the universe. Astronomy is one of the many fields of physics. A successful physicist or astronomer must have:
1.) Mastery of the basic concepts of the field (Newtonian mechanics, electromagnetism, statistical mechanics, quantum theory, optics and relativity),
2.) The ability and ambition to design and conduct new research, and
3.) The writing and oral skills necessary to communicate these results to the scientific community.
An astronomy student must also have a strong foundation in astrophysics.
The mission of the department is for our students to understand the fundamental principles of physics and astronomy. This education is designed to allow our students to pursue a variety of post-baccalaureate careers: employment in industry or government laboratories upon graduation, graduate studies in physics, astronomy or some other field, or professional studies such as medical or law school. Non-traditional career options are also open to our students and we encourage them to keep all of their options open.
The assessment of a program in physics and astronomy must evaluate the abilities of the students in independent thought and the pursuit of knowledge by research means. Participation in undergraduate research requires that the student have a firm understanding of basic concepts of the field and the ability and drive to explore “uncharted” knowledge. Consequently, we feel that undergraduate research is a vital component of our assessment of how well our students have achieved the student outcomes.
All of our students (both majors and minors in physics and astronomy) are strongly encouraged to participate in undergraduate research and most students do perform such research. Typically, undergraduate students become involved in research during their junior or senior years, though we have had exceptional students who started even earlier. Each spring we hold an undergraduate research symposium for the students to give oral presentations of their research. We run this symposium in the same format as professional meetings so that the students gain relevant experience. Three faculty members are selected to judge the quality of the research and presentation. The attached rubric (see appendix) is used for the judging. We have been holding this annual undergraduate research symposium since 1991.
Each of the three student outcomes are assessed by this symposium and its rubric. In order to work on a research problem, the student must understand the context of this research within the basic concepts of physics and astronomy. The student’s description of this connection during their presentation is a very good tool for assessing their knowledge of the basic concepts since the student must develop his/her own language. Though some of the basic concepts are not involved in certain research projects, there is ample opportunity to judge his/her mastery of basic concepts, especially during the question and answer period associated with each presentation in the symposium.
The students must describe how they designed their research efforts and the reasoning they used in developing this design. They must describe the steps that they used in conducting the research. Their description of their project provides a clear way to judge their abilities to communicate their research to the scientific community.
Our students are also encouraged to write a thesis about their research. Frequently, this thesis forms the basis of a publication in the refereed literature. Copies of the Honors Theses of our students are maintained in the department.
Our undergraduate students are
also encouraged to present their research at national meetings of the American
Astronomical Society and the American Physical Society as well as at the
National Conference on Undergraduate Research.
The very high quality of our undergraduate research program is shown by
the fact that our undergraduate students have co-authored 40 publications in
the refereed literature since 1988. The authors
compete on an international level with professionals in the field and using the
publication record is an excellent tool for the assessment of the quality of a
program.
Another
tool of judging the quality of an undergraduate program in physics and
astronomy is the professional path taken by our graduates. Many of our undergraduates have continued
their physics and/or astronomy studies in graduate work at very prestigious
universities. Others have gone into
industrial positions. Others still have
branched out to other fields such as civil engineering, medical physics, and
law.
Cumulative
records are maintained to track:
1.)
all refereed and
non-refereed publications;
2.)
all talks given at
professional meetings and NCUR;
3.)
participation in our
annual departmental Undergraduate Research Symposia
4.)
post-baccalaureate careers of our undergraduate
students
We also assess our program by conducting exit interviews with all of our senior students during their last semester. The student perspectives are used in the discussions of our Assessment and Curriculum Committees for possible changes in our program. As discussed below, our program has been modified four times in the last four years in response to student opinions.
Contact with the students is maintained after they graduate from our department. Another interview is then performed with the students about 4 years after their graduation. This second interview focuses on how well their baccalaureate education here at The University of Toledo has served them in the time since graduation. Though every attempt is made to stay in touch with the students after their graduation, occasionally, it has been impossible to maintain contact with a student; about 7% of our graduates have “disappeared.” This contact is also important to maintain in order to determine their professional paths.
Both interview forms are attached
to this document.
Finally,
each course is individually assessed through student evaluation surveys, and
the department as a whole regularly assesses the curriculum to insure that
students are receiving material germane to future careers in physics and
astronomy.
As mentioned above, our
undergraduate research symposia are held in the spring (typically near the end
of March). Senior and Honors Theses are
collected at the end of last semester of the student’s undergraduate
career. Our exit interviews are
conducted in early April. Our 4 year
interviews are conducted in October. Student evaluation surveys are conducted at the end of each
semester, and department curriculum assessment occurs every one or two
years. The cumulative records are
continuously updated as the information becomes available.
In September, the Assessment and Curriculum Committees review the data collected over the previous 12 months. On the basis of this review, specific changes in our curriculum are proposed and acted upon by the faculty during.
At this time, we are modifying the requirements for the minor in physics. We are replacing the requirement for an Advanced Lab (either Physics 4580 or 4780) to include any Physics course numbered above 3320. This change provides more flexibility which some students requested.
In the fall semester of 2002, a number of our students requested a course specifically on the mathematical methods of physics. The department offered such a course in the spring of 2003 and 2004. The department is considering making it a permanent part of the curriculum.
In 2001 we instituted new
Bachelor of Arts degrees in both astronomy and physics. These degrees are broader than our
traditional Bachelor of Science degree.
These degrees are already very successful,
attracting new students who might not have otherwise joined our program.
In 2000 we introduced Physics 1910, Frontiers of Physics and Astronomy to provide the students with a broad perspective and introduce them to exciting challenges and the strangeness of reality early in their career.
The Department committed itself
to a strong undergraduate research program in 1988. We have received continuous funding for
undergraduate research from the National Science Foundation since 1992. Several faculty
members have recently devoted a large amount of time and effort to redesign
both our intermediate and advanced lab courses, with the full support of the
department as a whole.
As stated above, we instituted new Bachelor of Arts degrees in both Physics and Astronomy in Fall 2001 and we offered a new course in the Spring 2003 and 2004 semesters.
The Assessment Committee (currently Profs. L.S. Anderson-Huang, T.J. Kvale and S.A. Lee) is responsible for the Assessment program of the Department of Physics and Astronomy.
II. Graduate Degrees in Physics
Physics seeks to understand the physical world at the most fundamental level. A successful physicist must have:
1.) Mastery of the concepts of the field (Newtonian mechanics, electromagnetism, statistical mechanics, quantum theory, optics and relativity),
2.) The ability and ambition to design and conduct new research, and
3.) The writing and oral skills necessary to communicate these results to the scientific community.
The mission of the department is for our students to understand the fundamental principles of physics. This education is designed to allow our students to pursue a variety of careers after graduate school: employment in university, industrial or government positions as well as professional studies such as medical or law school. Non-traditional career options are also open to our students and we encourage them to keep all of their options open.
Our students are assessed regularly throughout the graduate career. All of our graduate students must have a yearly meeting with their thesis committee in which they report their progress on their research. Questioning by the committee at these meetings provides important feedback about the student’s understanding of her/his own research and how that research fits into the basic concepts of the field.
All of our graduate students are required to register for Physics Seminar each semester. In this seminar course, each student must present a research paper from the refereed literature. They must describe the methodologies used in the paper, the results, and the implications of the paper. These presentations are given to an audience of faculty and graduate students. The students must present arguments about the validity of the methodologies in the paper with respect to the fundamental concepts of physics.
Our Ph.D. students also take the Qualifying Exam (typically in the first year of study) in order to become a candidate for a Ph.D. This exam has both written and oral components. The written part (typically given on a weekend) specifically covers a variety of problems from Classical Mechanics, Statistical Mechanics, Electromagnetism and Quantum Mechanics. The oral portion is given by a panel of three faculty members and covers all areas of physics.
The Ph.D. students also take the Comprehensive Exam two years after first taking the Qualifying Exam. This exam covers all areas of physics and the student is expected to show mastery of these areas at the Ph.D. level.
Both our M.S. and Ph.D. students are required to produce a written thesis about their research and to defend this thesis in an oral presentation (open to the public). This thesis defense covers all areas of physics relevant to the research of the student. The student’s research is expected to be presented at national and international conferences of the relevant professional societies (e.g., American Astronomical Society, American Physical Society, Materials Research Society) and to be published in the refereed literature.
We also assess our program by tracking the post-graduate career of our students. This is a very important assessment tool since it shows how well our students do. For those students who are employed in an industrial or academic position, their success shows that our students are able to compete in the very competitive marketplace of high technology.
The Qualifying Exams are conducted in September and January of each academic year. The yearly progress report meetings are held in February. All of the other exams are scheduled at the appropriate times in the student’s career. Copies of theses, dissertations and refereed publications are collected when they become available. Tracking information is updated in October.
Our long-standing and ongoing efforts at assessment have permitted us to make a number of modifications to our program. Our most recent changes (2003) in our curriculum has been to modify the course requirements of the Ph.D. and allow Physics 6130 (Computational Physics), 6140 (Fundamentals of Modern Physics) and 6180 (Modern Physics Laboratory) to count towards the Ph.D. Physics 6140 was also changed from a P/NC to a graded course.
In the past two years we have modified the Qualifying Exam significantly in order to permit the students to take it about one year earlier. This enables the student to know earlier if they will be permitted to pursue a Ph.D. here in our department.
We have made several significant
changes in our degree options. In 2002
we added a Ph.D. in Physics with a concentration in Medical Physics as well as
a joint program with the
As described above, we have devoted substantial departmental resources to the assessment of our graduate program. Many of these changes have been made in response to student input. Indeed, all of the changes listed in the previous section have been motivated by the desires of students. We have also monitored national trends, as published by the American Institute of Physics.
Assessment Liaisons
The Assessment Committiee (currently Profs. L.S. Anderson-Huang, T.J. Kvale and S.A. Lee) is responsible for the Assessment program of the Department of Physics and Astronomy.
Appendix – Symposium rubric and interview forms for undergraduate
assessment program
Exit Interview
This exit interview is given so that you may provide feedback to the department about our program. We value your opinions very highly and hope that you will tell us what we have done well and what we need to improve. I will never associate any of your responses with you when I report the results of our exit interviews to the department at large. In that sense, this interview is anonymous. Please feel free to praise our strengths and to criticize our weaknesses. We can improve only if we know what we have done poorly.
1. Thinking of your overall degree program, what parts of the program do you think were particularly valuable to you? Why?
2. Thinking of your overall degree program, what parts of the program do you think were of little value to you? Why? What could we do to improve those parts?
3. The teaching abilities of the professors in this department can be described as (names not necessary, but would be helpful):
Excellent:
Good:
Fair:
Marginal:
Poor:
Terrible:
4. Of the professors whose teaching abilities could be described as "good" or "excellent", their strengths included:
5. Of the professors whose teaching abilities could be described as "poor" or "terrible", their faults included:
6. Which activities outside the classroom, if any, made you feel as being part of the department?
7. What should the department do to make the student feel more "at home" in the department?
8. What are the strengths and weaknesses of our chapter of the Society of Physics Students?
9. What could the department do to strengthen our SPS chapter?
10. In your interactions with professors outside the classroom, how would you describe their attitude towards you?
11. What is your opinion about the textbooks used in the courses that you took in Physics and Astronomy?
12. What is your opinion of the format used in the courses that you took in Physics and Astronomy?
13. Any other comments?
Four-Year Interview (after graduation)
This interview is an opportunity for you to tell us how well
your undergraduate education at the
Please feel free to praise our strengths and to criticize our weaknesses. We can improve only if we know what we have done poorly.
1. What have you done since you received your bachelor’s degree? Please be as specific as possible. If you have been in graduate or professional school, please tell us at which institution and in what field of study. If you have been employed, please tell us what your duties were and for which companies you have worked.
2. Thinking of your overall degree program, what parts of the program do you think were particularly valuable to you? Why?
3. Thinking of your overall degree program, what parts of the program do you think were of little value to you? Why? What could we do to improve those parts?
4. What changes would you recommend in the courses that are required? Should some of them be eliminated from the curriculum? Why? Should some new courses be added to the curriculum? Why?
5. What skills have you needed since you received your bachelor’s degree? How did our program help to build those skills? What skills did you need but we didn’t teach at all? How might we teach such skills?
6. What should the department do to keep you informed about us?
7. Any other comments?
Scoring rubric for talks presented at the
Undergraduate Research Symposium
|
Score Category |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
Statement of Research problem/project |
Project never defined clearly |
Project mentioned but only vaguely |
Project described fairly well but not perfectly |
Clear statement with full picture of project |
|
Context of Research |
Neither background nor importance of project described adequately |
Either background or importance of project described adequately but not both |
Both background and importance of project are described but not completely |
Complete description of background work and why research project is important |
|
Experimental/Theoretical techniques used and justification for their selection |
Neither the techniques nor the justification(s) presented adequately |
Incomplete description of either the techniques or justification |
Both the techniques and justification are presented but not completely |
Complete description of the techniques and justification(s) are fully given |
|
Mastery of basic concepts of the field |
No understanding of basic concepts |
Very rudimentary understanding of the basic concepts with major gaps in knowledge |
Basic concepts mainly understood, but some small gaps exist |
Complete mastery of basic concepts |
|
Physical basis for technique(s) |
Little or no description of physical principles underlying chosen techniques |
Description of underlying physical principles reveals significant flaws |
Description of underlying physical principles is mainly correct, but lacking some details |
Complete description of the physical principles underlying the chosen techniques |
|
Outcome of research |
Very vague or no description of results |
Results are described, but with major omission |
Results are described, but some detail is missing or confused |
Complete and clear description of results |
|
Score Category |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
Interpretation of results in terms of underlying physical principles |
Essentially no interpretation is given |
Interpretation is given, but contains significant flaws |
Interpretation is essentially correct, but some details are wrong |
Complete and clear interpretation of results given |
|
Relate research results to the field |
No relationship given (or very little) |
Results related to field, but with significant flaws |
Results related to field, but with some small problems |
Results clearly related to field |
|
Summary |
No Summary given |
Summary given, but with major flaws |
Summary given but some details omitted |
Excellent synopsis of overall picture |
|
Oral Presentation |
Speaker was nearly incoherent or not understandable |
Oral presentation suffered a major flaw |
Mainly a clear and coherent oral presentation but had some small
problems |
Spoke clearly and coherently throughout talk |
|
Prepared graphics |
Graphics were very poor, with little or no logic |
Graphics marginal and need significant improvement |
Graphics fairly good but could be improved in a small way |
Graphics clearly conveyed all of the ideas |
|
Question and Answer period |
Speaker had difficulty with every question |
Speaker had significant problems with some but not all of the
questions |
Speaker handled most questions adequately, but had some small
problems |
Speaker handled all questions with ease |